Author
Topic: NFP is So Difficult (Read 6937 times)

NFP is so incredibly difficult at times. It requires us (husband and wife) to fight our temptations--to sacrifice our own immediate desires for the benefit of the family as a whole. And because we're using NFP instead of ABC, we're sacrificing for our Lord as well.

This is exactly why NFP is morally acceptable (for the right reasons) and ABC is not morally acceptable (despite the reasons). NFP allows my wife and I to sacrifice together (one of the true callings of a husband and wife), for each other, for our family, and for our Lord. ABC is never sacrificial--its too easy.

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

I agree that NFP is difficult. I also think it's birth control, and I'm pretty darn sure that the Church Fathers would have viewed it as such as well. But then, I think all (non abortifacient) birth control should be allowed, despite what the Fathers said, so I guess it doesn't really matter to me.

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

We share an interest, but it ends up an issue.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Asteriktos,Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.

The allegation of some Catholic theologians is that the teachingon birth control has been changed to endorse the NFP method.The papal teaching of the Pope was previously against NFP but Pope Paul VI changed the teaching and allowed NFP.

Pope Pius XI, "Casti Connubii" in 1930:

"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposedto each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to theoffspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden ofmatrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married peoplenot through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimonywhen both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justifythis criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wishto gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say thatthey cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they havechildren because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or onthe part of the family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anythingintrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morallygood. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature forthe begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrateits natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which isshameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majestyregards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times haspunished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, 'Intercourse even with one'slegitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring isprevented.' Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it(Gen. 38:8-10).

"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christiantradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare anotherdoctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God hasentrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erectin the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she maypreserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foulstain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and throughOur mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in sucha way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power togenerate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and thosewho indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and:

Tobias 6:17 - "The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after threedays of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity.Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Raphael that to engage in themarital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. Forthey who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God fromthemselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, asthe horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hathpower."

Saint Caesar of Arles: "As often as he knows his wife without a desire forchildren. without a doubt he commits sin." W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of theEarly Fathers.

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

This is what my pastor told me on the subject when I was inquiring into Orthodoxy about a year ago:

Quote

We have been taught that using contraceptives is not the way to have a Godly marriage, that children are a blessing from God, although you may run into some "modern liberal" Orthodox in America who ignore that. However, as Orthodox we also refrain from marital relations during fasting periods, i.e. Tuesday and Thursday nights (the eves of the Wed and Fri. fast), on any evening before receiving Holy Communion (such as Saturday evening and before the 12 Great Feast days), and during the entire time of the four fasts: Lent, Nativity Fast, Apostles Fast, and Dormition Fast. This adds up to more than half of the year that we abstain, and it seems to me upon cursory inspection that "large" Orthodox families are about half the size of "large" Catholic families. Also, you may know that while women are exclusively breastfeeding (on demand, no supplemental feedings) the hormones act as a natural birth control with about 98% effectiveness. Of course women are only fertile a few days every month, and abstinence during that time is a fairly effective method if needed. However, women are much more "interested" when they are fertile than at other times, so that has its frustrations. Basically though, we need and want more Orthodox babies and families for the sake of our souls (our spiritual growth and responsibility) and theirs.

I can't really say that NFP is difficult or not because I'm not married (nor near marriage), I, like Asteriktos, think that NFP is a type of birth control (albeit, not artificial).

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

Asteriktos,Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.

Fair enough. I hope my post didn't come across as combative. Actually, after we had our second child, my wife started to use (priest-approved™) birth control, when her cardiologist told her that it'd be dangerous to go through another pregnancy.

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Asteriktos,Whether NFP is birth control or not is a question I have struggled with in the past. I thought that the objective was the same therefore the act was the same. But lately I've come to realize something. The objective is not the same at all. If one chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (for the right reasons) one is not choosing to obstruct God's design, but is instead abstaining when both persons are most drawn to having marital relations.

It is true, that when used correctly, NFP is as effective at preventing conception as any ABC method. However, using NFP correctly means you are sacrificing at precisely the times it is most difficult to sacrifice. Where as, with ABC we do whatever we want whenever we want despite God's will or His plan.

Fair enough. I hope my post didn't come across as combative. Actually, after we had our second child, my wife started to use (priest-approved™) birth control, when her cardiologist told her that it'd be dangerous to go through another pregnancy.

Oh no. I didn't feel you were being combative at all. I like the "priest-approved™" birth control.

Your situation, at least in the Catholic Church, would be a great reason to use NFP as a form of "birth control" though I don't think that phraseology would go over very well.

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water. People are just not interested in using it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use it. The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their Church and seen as gravely sinful.

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

NFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water. People are just not interested in using it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use it. The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their Church and seen as gravely sinful.

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?

In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

Just to be clear: I don't have any say in that. I've just seen how these types of threads go.

Quote

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

That's not the word that is being broadcast (and I watch/listen to a lot of Vatican TV/radio). Birth control is fine as long as it is NFP.

Quote

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?

That's usually when it becomes a cross tradition debate.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primarypurpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and educationof children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primaryend) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches maynot lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is itright to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,according to this encyclical and...

Exactly! But I think the point is that NFP does not frustrate the "conjugal act" precisely because when practiced, there is no conjugal act.

NFP times the conjugal act when there is less/no chance of children, hence the idea of frustration.

This is the reason why Humanae Vitae has nearly nothing in the way of Patristics, because the Fathers who condemned birth control also abhored sex for anything but procreation.

This is also why it was moved.

ialmisry,It was moved because of its connection with Humanae Vitae? Interesting.

The Catholic Church teaches that even NFP, when used as a means of "birth control" is a sin. But there are cases, such as that described by Asteriktos, where NFP would be an acceptable means of avoiding pregnancy.

It seems to me that the question is often over simplified. We say that either "contraception" is wrong, and therefore any means of avoiding pregnancy for any reason is wrong, or we say "contraception" is ok and is always ok.

I think the real answer is that intentionally obstructing God's plan for a married couple is inherently sinful when done for selfish reasons. But there are times when avoiding a pregnancy is necessary for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all of those involved. The issue then becomes, what is the right way to avoid pregnancy in such a case? By partaking in the marital act whenever you want and intentionally and artificially obstructing its natural conclusion or by making a sacrificial act and abstaining when pregnancy is most likely?

In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.

Oh, I've seen traditional Jewish teaching on the subject of intercourse. I wouldn't throw stones.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In other words, it's ok to practice birth control if you torture yourself sufficeintly in the process. That'll teach you.

No. Sacrifice does not necessarily mean torture. But even if it were the case, it is the submitting to God's will and placing yourself at His mercy that makes the difference. There is no sacrificial component to artificial birth control. It is used precisely because couples want the freedom to engage in marital relations without ever having the unintended consequence of conceiving a child. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.

NFP forces couples to control themselves--to submit to God's own built in mechanisms. I don't choose when I want to obstain from relations with my wife. I only choose whether I want to. God's own design has dictated when and if my abstinence will matter. I am still subject to His will. ABC means I circumvent his will without any regard for what His will is.

I certainly don't mind that this post was moved, but I am curious why it was moved? Is it because I'm Catholic? I thought NFP and ABC were issues Catholic and Orthodox alike shared an interest in. Fr. Ambrose himself is a supporter of NFP is he not?

ONFP is OK but it is really a dead duck in the water. People are just not interested in using it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reported a few years back that they estimate that only between 2% and 3% of childbearing Catholic couples use it. The remaining 97% use methods of contraception forbidden by their Church and seen as gravely sinful.

So I would say, being very pragmatic, that if the Vatican with its very sophisticated educational techniques on family planning cannot persuade more than 3% of its married couples to use NFP you won't find too many Orthodox using it.

-oOo-

Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.

It just means no one cares...

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.

The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??

I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, it doesn't matter. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, then it doesn't matter if anyone agrees or cares about anything it says or claims. It is either true or it is not true. Truth is not a popularity contest.

Again, it doesn't matter. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, then it doesn't matter if anyone agrees or cares about anything it says or claims. It is either true or it is not true. Truth is not a popularity contest.

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanymously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

The reason I wonder is because this seems to be at least one perspective on what validates, at least in part, synods and councils, is it not?

Correction: Yes, it is. Sorry. Let's not get bogged down in semantics here. If the sexual act is not carried out, what's the moral problem? We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 01:10:49 AM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

my sig. other and I have never used any type of birth control. go figure!

"male and female he created them." You have to have one of each for birth to occur.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.

The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??

I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently listened to a talk by the Secretary to Pope Paul VI. He stated that the Pope's decision to move forward with Humanae Vitae was one which he struggled with. He knew it would not be popular. He knew it would be a hard teaching. He had plenty of people advising him against it, but he knew it was right.

Stating “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” does not mean it will be altered. It merely reflects Pope Paul's own uneasiness. His human doubt. But in the end he did what he believed the Holy Spirit was compelling him to do. He withheld what he believed to be the "validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control." I don't think there is any other Christian denomination in the world that still holds this tradition. But Peter wasn't called the Rock for nothing.

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanymously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

The reason I wonder is because this seems to be at least one perspective on what validates, at least in part, synods and councils, is it not?

I'm not the right person to answer this question, but I believe you are correct in your understanding.

Correction: Yes, it is. Sorry. Let's not get bogged down in semantics here. If the sexual act is not carried out, what's the moral problem? We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

I don't believe the question is a matter of the times when intercourse is avoided, but is instead the instances where the conjugal act is engaged with the knowledge that conception is only 1% likely.

We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

From an Orthodox perspective, I suppose it depends. Some would argue that the Eastern Fathers didn't speak on the matter, or spoke on it rarely. Such people would build a case that the western Fathers who spoke on the issue (Bl. Augustine, St. Gregory Dialogist, etc.) should not be listened to. They could point to more than just the contraception issue (e.g. priestly celibacy) in an attempt to show that the western parts of the Church had a different viewpoint on sexual matters than the eastern parts. On the other hand, some other people could argue that a number of Church Fathers spoke against contraception, and none allowed it; also, when they spoke against it, that included ancient methods which avoided intercourse.

Dead duck? Ouch! Just because the majority of Catholics in the United States choose not to obey their Church does not mean the instructions of the Church are ignorable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't really matter who agrees.

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.

The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??

I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently listened to a talk by the Secretary to Pope Paul VI. He stated that the Pope's decision to move forward with Humanae Vitae was one which he struggled with. He knew it would not be popular. He knew it would be a hard teaching. He had plenty of people advising him against it, but he knew it was right.

Stating “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” does not mean it will be altered. It merely reflects Pope Paul's own uneasiness. His human doubt. But in the end he did what he believed the Holy Spirit was compelling him to do. He withheld what he believed to be the "validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control." I don't think there is any other Christian denomination in the world that still holds this tradition. But Peter wasn't called the Rock for nothing.

And the thread is tied into its proper place.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

We're not talking about the Pill or condoms here, just avoidance of intercourse. What's wrong with that from either the RC or Orthodox perspective?

From an Orthodox perspective, I suppose it depends. Some would argue that the Eastern Fathers didn't speak on the matter, or spoke on it rarely. Such people would build a case that the western Fathers who spoke on the issue (Bl. Augustine, St. Gregory Dialogist, etc.) should not be listened to. They could point to more than just the contraception issue (e.g. priestly celibacy) in an attempt to show that the western parts of the Church had a different viewpoint on sexual matters than the eastern parts. On the other hand, some other people could argue that a number of Church Fathers spoke against contraception, and none allowed it; also, when they spoke against it, that included ancient methods which avoided intercourse.

What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Oh? Not from the studies I've seen (secular, on third world training, in the context of trying to conceive, and trying to conceive a child of one sex).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I could be completely wrong here, but would the Orthodox response to this be that if the people reject almost unanimously the teaching of their hierarchs then that would be an indication that that teaching is incorrect or suspect at least?

Not necessarily. Arianism was the standard at one point with the laity, East and West, and they weren't having it any other way. Sometimes the hierarchs are the only ones that are right. And sometimes they are heretics.

Yes. But I would have avoided this kind of language if it was kept where I started it. I did not bring this issue up to be confrontational from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. I wanted to talk the issue of NFP as a contraceptive through. There are many good people on this forum (yourself included, ialmisry) who have much to offer in the way of thoughtful Christian dialog on very important topics. I learn from dialog--especially from learned Christians with varying viewpoints.

What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Nonsense? Really? I don't choose when to abstain from sex because I do not choose when my wife is ovulating. God designed us. I did not design us. He chooses when she ovulates.

If we were to use some sort of artificial birth control, then I could choose any time to abstain or any time not to abstain and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. With NFP, I am always dependent on God.

What nonsense! Of course you are choosing when to abstain from sex. You are choosing to abstain from sex when it is likely that you two will conceive. Why can't you just admit you are practising birth control (and not very effective birth control).

Nonsense? Really? I don't choose when to abstain from sex because I do not choose when my wife is ovulating. God designed us. I did not design us. He chooses when she ovulates.

If we were to use some sort of artificial birth control, then I could choose any time to abstain or any time not to abstain and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. With NFP, I am always dependent on God.

Yes. It is absolute pharisaical nonsense. You ARE choosing to abstain from sex at certain times, which, the Apostles said should only be done for a time for the purpose of prayer- not to avoid getting pregnant. God isn't telling you not to have sex during ovulation, you are choosing to do this of your own accord. Don't blame God for your choices.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.